elderscrollsfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Good Skooma Pipe
Edit error When no information is listed under a subject, that subject should not be displayed. Rather obvious to all but the most oblivious. I tried to remove the empty Merchants entry but your silly interface provides this most informative response and refuses to post the edit: "Something went wrong The modification you tried to make was aborted by an extension hook" Excellent work on trying to create a user friendly interface that works. It appears your moderators' theme is: If at first you do not succeed, become a canary. Keep it up, or maybe try harder to make it work in between your little social wars over who is allowed to do what and who owns this or that article and who has the coolest forum title. Correct me if I am wrong: I understood the elderscrolls.fandom.com wiki is only to provide detailed and accurate information pertaining to the Elder Scrolls series. Did I get this wrong? 00:02, December 25, 2019 (UTC) :This post has a lot of needless aggression. Why are you so angry over it? Nevertheless, wanted to reply to it, and mention the reason that you can't make remove stuff like that from the wiki is because you're not registered with an account. Typically anons are either vulgar or vandals, and mess up articles, so there's an extension to make sure that anons that just remove certain stuff don't have their edits go through. I'm also not particularly sure what your second to last paragraph means, but I'm going to assume it's just pointless hostility. If you have any more concerns about an extension or content of that nature, you should message a moderator or use the forums, rather than posting it in an irrelevant place. :Empty headers are to point to where information needs to be added. I personally don't agree to the practice because it seems messy, but it's a part of the wiki. If you want to change it, feel free to create an account and join the moot. Rather than attempting to remove it and being negative about it, try to be positive and add information instead! – The New Crusader of Truth (talk – ) 00:41, December 25, 2019 (UTC) ::Hi, I'm an administrator here and would just like to make a quick comment. The error that you're experiencing is in fact an effect of one of the that we've set. These modules limit actions that are likely to be vandalism and spam on a large scale, thereby significantly reducing the amount of time we have to spend manually reverting nonsense and increasing the amount that we can spend improving the encyclopedia in other ways. ::Your edit was classified by the filter as "Section Blanking," which it was. Because your account is not , your edit was not allowed to pass through. This is an extremely standard maneuver on any established wiki, so I don't think it is exactly accurate to call it a "social war." If you create an account and make a few edits, it takes less than a week for it to be automatically autoconfirmed. I'm not really sure where that error message comes from, as we currently have it set to the contents of MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-removal. ::We typically do not remove sections that are standardized for a given article type from said articles, even if they are empty. Missing section content should be marked with the template , which adds the article to a maintenance category so that it can be systematically improved in the future. We do not usually do this for non-essential sections. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Thanks. —Atvelonis (talk) 00:51, December 25, 2019 (UTC) :::I, like millions of others will leave you to your rhetorical fifedom of sections that are standardized of vulgar and have no vandals to mess up articles. Perish the thought someone might know anything. 02:34, December 28, 2019 (UTC) ::::I appreciate the criticism, but you will find automated regex spam control measures in place on any other established wiki. I would note that, unlike some of our contemporaries, we intentionally do not prohibit users from editing anonymously altogether, and less than 1% of anon actions trigger Abuse Filters in any form. ::::TESWiki very much encourages boldness in editing and assumes good faith in contributions. The Abuse Filters are not a violation of the latter policy; they are set to catch disallowed actions (including spam and vandalism), but we intentionally do not have them auto-block offending users, as we recognize that intent is more important than action in many situations, and that false positives occur once in a blue moon. ::::If in the future you find yourself unable to edit an article, for whatever reason, you are more than welcome to request help from an administrator on their talk page or on our Discord server. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Thanks. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:35, December 28, 2019 (UTC) :::::Please identify the regex expresssions that rejected my edits. 07:48, January 1, 2020 (UTC) ::::::The edits were rejected, because of section blanking. It is always recommended to add template before removing the section, otherwise please provide your source of information in the summary. --Rupuzioks (talk) 12:45, January 1, 2020 (UTC) :::::::I did not remove any sections. Please identify the exact regex expresssions that rejected my edits. 01:04, January 5, 2020 (UTC) The edits in question are stored in the abuse log, which is publicly accessible to anyone in the User usergroup. I think you may need to be a sysop in order to view the diff, but these are the exact edits: *18:46, December 24, 2019: 70.49.30.142 (filter trigger number 34438) *18:49, December 24, 2019: 70.49.30.142 (filter trigger number 34439) * 18:51, December 24, 2019: 70.49.30.142 (filter trigger number 34440) In each of these edits, the following content was removed: Merchants The following people sell this item: * This triggered , which has the following regular expression as a valid match: (!("autoconfirmed" in user_groups) & ((article_namespace 0) & ((length(added_lines) < 1) & (((rmwhitespace(removed_lines) rlike " \w+ ") & ((rmwhitespace(old_wikitext) contains rmwhitespace(removed_lines + " ")) & (!(rmwhitespace(new_wikitext) contains rmwhitespace(removed_lines + " "))) )) | ((rmwhitespace(old_wikitext) contains rmwhitespace(" " + removed_lines + " ")) & (!(rmwhitespace(new_wikitext) contains rmwhitespace(removed_lines + " "))) ))))) This is actually an import from Wikipedia and has worked for a long time. It is not new and I don’t think it has any unintended side effects. Anyway, it produces a match iff the user making the edit is not autoconfirmed, if the edit is in ns:0 (mainspace), if the user does not add any additional lines in their edit (so that the filter is not triggered for rewrites, just removals), and if a header \w+ is removed in the edit. All of these conditions must be active in order for the filter to be triggered. In your case, all conditions were met; as you said yourself, you removed a section from the article. That this section was (mostly) empty was not taken into account by the filter, because it is designed to go off if any section is blanked, not exclusively if a completed section is blanked. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Thanks. —Atvelonis (talk) 23:37, January 5, 2020 (UTC) :That is very interesting but that was not me. I simply created a new line stating the obvious. Maesa must have been a blade. 07:24, January 6, 2020 (UTC) ::I am certain, without a doubt, that the edits caught by the Abuse Filter that I linked above are associated with the IP address . There are no edits on that account associated with the Maesa page. If this is a shared account, I do not have any interest in differentiating between its users (or the ability to do so consistently); the output of the account is all that is relevant. ::I would note that you are not being punished, reprimanded, or excluded in any way for any of these edits. They were just caught by the Abuse Filter. It even happens to me once in a while. So I am not really clear on the indignation here. You do not have to admit or prove anything to anyone. I am simply here to provide information. —Atvelonis (talk) 15:36, January 6, 2020 (UTC)